>> A signer publishes to support a new algorithm "rot13". If >> spammers happen to know that certain receivers don't support >> "rot13", they can forge (invalid) "rot13" signatures in >> phishes to these receivers. > >John introduced ROT13 but unless I am severely mistaken he was arguing >that this attack was unimportant.
No, I was arguing that a sender's opinion about the relative merits of algorithms is useless to a receiver, so there is no point in publishing it. Wietse summarized the reasonable approach to verifying signatures well enough that I won't try and do so again. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
